Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:43:16.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Collaborating with Farmers to Recover Indigenous Archaic Period History from Private Lithic Collections in Virginia's Rappahannock River Valley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Gail Williams Wertz*
Affiliation:
American Indian Resource Center, Department of Anthropology, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA
*
(gwwertz@email.wm.edu, corresponding author)

Abstract

Recovering Archaic period history of Native Americans such as the Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia is problematic because most of their rich, riverfront lands were taken by European colonists. Remaining archaeological material culture is now the property of current landowners. I collaborated with farmers along the Rappahannock River to evaluate their previously unstudied lithic collections as archaeological data sources. I tested landowner collections made by decades of repeated surveys for reliability by comparing independently made collections from the same site. The collections were significantly similar in abundance and composition through time, indicating they were representative samples of the underlying population. Comparison of collections including ground-stone tools from two different sites gave evidence of demographic changes and shifting settlement patterns through the Archaic periods and informed narratives of long-term Indigenous cultural change. I consulted with present-day Rappahannock Tribe members, who consider these collections important for tribal history, to develop research questions and evaluate shared results. Although private collections often lack documentation, proactive collaboration with responsive collectors as described allowed essential information to be recovered, documented, and preserved for the archaeological record. Building bridges of trust and information transfer among collectors, archaeologists, and tribe members is key to maximizing the information value of private collections.

La recuperación de la historia del período arcaico de los nativos americanos, como la tribu Rappahannock de Virginia, es problemático porque los colonizadores europeos tomaron la mayoría de sus fértiles tierras ribereñas. Lo que queda de la cultura material arqueológica es ya la propiedad de los terratenientes actuales. Yo he colaborado con granjeros por el río Rappahannock para evaluar sus colecciones líticas no estudiadas como fuentes de datos arqueológicos. Probé la fiabilidad de las colecciones de terratenientes —realizadas por décadas de encuestas repetidas— con una comparación de unas colecciones hechas independientemente, del mismo sitio. Las puntas de proyectil sensibles al tiempo fueron considerablemente parecidas en abundancia y composición a lo largo del tiempo, lo que indica que eran muestras representativas de la populación subyacente. La comparación de las colecciones de dos sitios diferentes dio evidencia de cambios demográficos y cambiantes patrones de asentamiento por los períodos arcaicos, e informó de unos narrativos del cambio prolongado en la cultura indígena. Consulté con miembros actuales de la tribu Rappahannock —quienes ven estas colecciones como importantes para la historia tribal— para desarrollar unas preguntas de investigación y evaluar unos resultados compartidos. Aunque muchas veces las colecciones privadas carecen de la documentación, la colaboración proactiva con recolectores receptivos ha permitido la recuperación, documentación y preservación de información fundamental para el registro arqueológico. Crear puentes de confianza y transferencia de información entre recolectores, arqueólogos y miembros de la tribu es la clave para maximizar el valor de la información de las colecciones privadas.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Jenny 1996 Manual for a Technological Approach to Ground Stone Analysis. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Ammerman, Albert J. 1985 Plow-Zone Experiments in Calabria, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:3340.Google Scholar
Anderson, David 2001 Climate and Culture Change in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:143186.Google Scholar
Anderson, David, and Hanson, Glen 1988 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Southeast: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails. American Antiquity 45:420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dent, Richard 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egghart, Christopher 2016 Early Archaic through Early Woodland Settlement and Population as Evidenced by the Robert Ogle Projectile Point Collection, Sussex County, Virginia. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 32:117137.Google Scholar
Egloff, Keith T., and McAvoy, Joseph M. 1990 Chronology of Virginia's Early and Middle Archaic Periods. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Reinhart, Theodore and Hodges, Mary Ellen, pp. 6179. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.Google Scholar
French, Jennifer C. 2015 The Demography of the Upper Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherers of Southwestern France: A Multi-Proxy Approach Using Archaeological Data. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39:193209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Julia A., and Samford, Patricia 2019 Making Archaeological Collections Available for Research: Recommendations for Repositories. Advances in Archaeological Practice 7:311316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewarch, Dennis, and O'Brien, Michael 1981 The Expanding Role of Surface Assemblages in Archaeological Research. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4:297342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, George, and Cowan, Frank 1987 Estimating Tillage Effects on Artifact Distributions. American Antiquity 52:456484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie 2014 An Argument for Ethical, Proactive, Archaeologist-Artifact-Collector Collaboration. American Antiquity 79:385400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragan, Edward 2006 Where the Water Ebbs and Flows: Place and Self among the Rappahannock People, from the Emergence of Their Community until Its Seclusion in 1706. PhD dissertation, Department of History, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.Google Scholar
Roper, Donna C. 1976 Lateral Displacement of Artifacts Due to Plowing. American Antiquity 41:372–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Gregory J. 2018 The Indians Were Right, the English Were Wrong: A Virginia Tribe Reclaims Its Past. Washington Post, November 21. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/the-indians-were-right-the-english-were-wrong-a-virginia-tribe-reclaims-its-past/2018/11/21/2380f92c-e8f4-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html, accessed August 6, 2021.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1986 Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1995 Reliability of Archaeological Records on Cultivated Surfaces: A Michigan Case Study. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:475490.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2000 The Quantification Problem in Stone-Tool Assemblages. American Antiquity 65:725738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2008 equal o nll roofht w ded l e vsbr cted: A Proposal for Conservation of Private Collections in American Archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record 8(2):3035.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2010 Size Dependence in Assemblage Measures: Essentialism, Materialism, and “SHE” Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 75:886906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 2017 Estimating the Magnitude of Private Collection of Points and Its Effects on Professional Survey Results. Advances in Archaeological Practice 5:125137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Pitblado, Bonnie 2015 Introduction to the Theme “Pros and Cons of Consulting Collectors.” SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):1113, 39.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., Tiffany, Joseph A., Doershuk, John, and Titcomb, Jason 2002 The Reliability of Surface Assemblages: Recent Results from the Gillet Grove Site, Clay County, Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 47:165182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silliman, Stephen, and Ferguson, T. J. 2010 Consultation and Collaboration with Descendant Communities. In Voices in American Archaeology, edited by Ashmore, Wendy, Lippert, Dorothy, and Mills, Barbara, pp. 4872. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Speck, Frank G. 1925 The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. Indian Notes and Monographs Vol. 5, No. 3. New York Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, Scott, King, Julia, Anne Richardson, G., McCartney, Martha, and Busby, V. 2016 Defining the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape. Report to National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland, from St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, Maryland.Google Scholar
Turner, E. Randolph 1978 Population Distribution in the Virginia Coastal Plain, 8000 BC to AD 1600. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:6072.Google Scholar
Wertz, Gail Williams 2020 Dwelling “Where the Waters Rise and Fall”: The Historical Ecology of Archaic Period Settlement in the Rappahannock River Valley. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Proquest (27997785).Google Scholar